Post navigation

Why the Law is an Ass.

In 1987, Michael Ryan walked out into the streets of Hungerford and shot dead 16 people including his own Mother and then shot himself with a semi-automatic rifle – legally held.

The Government was horrified and passed the Firearms (Amendment) Act 1988 which banned the ownership of semi-automatic rifles – except in Northern Ireland.

In 1996, Thomas Hamilton walked into the Dunblane Primary School and shot sixteen children, another adult and himself with two handguns – legally held.

The Government was horrified and passed the Firearms (Amendment) Act (No 2) 1997 which banned the ownership of handguns.

In 2010, taxi driver Derek Bird walked round Cumbria and shot dead 12 adults before killing himself with a shotgun and a rifle – legally held.

The Government was horrified and announced that lessons would be learnt – they are still talking about what they should do.

Whilst they were talking Raoul Moat went on the rampage with a sawn off shotgun – not legally licensed! Ironically, neither was the Tazer gun which the police used to shoot Moat ‘at the precise moment he shot himself’.

Last night, another taxi driver, Michael Atherton was belatedly revealed to be one of the estimated 1.3 million adults who have been checked, investigated, reported on and duly issued with a section 1 firearm licence for a .22 – which he is believed to have used to shoot 4 members of his family in Peterlee.

Given that in order to hold a Section 1 Firearms licence you have to state the exact use to which you intend to put it – and one can assume that Mr Atherton didn’t spell out what he intended to do with it – isn’t it about time that we gave up this mockery of licencing Firearms? All it proves is that prior to obtaining the licence the person concerned hadn’t committed any crime – and those who have committed a crime are already locked into a network that can provide them with unlicensed guns.

Like the CRB check, the Mental Capacity Act and numerous other pieces of legislation over the past 50 years, it merely keeps the talking shop in Westminster in business, and does nothing to prevent the harm it was supposed to cure .

Your views? Will we turn into the Wild West without a Firearms Act? Will everyone rip off their elderly parents without the Mental Capacity Act? Will the CRB check cure paedophilia? Will the country go to Hell in a handcart if we dispense with our useless politicians and let everyone fend for themselves?

What! A population/electorate capable and equipped to resist subjugation?

That simply would not do.

AbleJanuary 4, 2012 at 18:25

I would welcome a relaxation along the lines of what is sometimes still called ‘Vermont style’ law or ‘shall issue’ – that is any citizen can apply for a concealed carry permit, only those with either a criminal record or mental health issues are legitimately refused, or on committing/developing have it removed. Why?

Firearms have progressively been banned, knives and other tools banned or restricted, and even the assumption of self defence has been questioned in this country. The result? Violent crime (murder/assault/rape/etc.) in this country has done nothing but rise astronomically over the last few decades.

Crime in the US has consistently fallen in every state which has adopted similar rules. In each and every case dire predictions of ‘blood in the streets’, ‘gunfights in bars’, ‘gun battles over parking spaces’, etc. have been made – guess what? None ever occurred anywhere. What ‘mass killings’ have occurred in the US have occurred exclusively in the few areas that ban concealed carry – suggestive isn’t it? The number of crimes prevented each year by permit owners (most without ever firing the weapon) numbers in the millions.

We here have higher rates of murder, rape and house-breaking per hundred thousand population than almost every area in the US (the exceptions being inner city and those areas populated almost exclusively by certain ethnicities – violent crime being partially cultural in basis witness the differences between northern and southern Europe), in fact the only countries with worse crime are South Africa and the ilk.

Consider the perpetrator and the victim. The victims are predominantly either old, young, female or outnumbered. What is the only tool that will allow a small, petite female to defend herself against assault and rape by a large man? A firearm, nothing else is even vaguely a possibility. So if you want your wife/daughter/sister to be able to walk out, or stay in, and stay safe – they need a gun.

Oh, and the cited examples of the ‘massacres’ used in Britain as a ‘reason’ for draconian gun legislation – well have a look at the actual histories. In each case the police were aware some time beforehand of the individual perpetrators having major questions raised about their having access to firearms, and they did nothing. The senior police officers who decided not to remove the weapons from these deranged madmen before they committed their horrendous crimes? Promoted of course. Ask yourself why. I suspect the same will be true in the latest tragic occurrence.

Ask yourself, if you were given a handgun would you immediately go out and shoot strangers in the street? Would you grab it and shoot your spouse in an argument? When your football team loses would you grab it and shoot the opposing supporters in the pub? If the answer is no, then why do you assume everyone else will? (and if yes, then does not having a gun prevent you from punching/kicking/strangling/hitting with a stick? Or is it you don’t want the missus to be able to defend herself from your violent outbursts?). Also ask, what would have happened if just one member of the public at each of those mass murders had been armed, how many innocent lives could have been saved.

Just my opinion (not that it counts for much here in the PC UK) YMMV

john malpasJanuary 3, 2012 at 23:34

Of course there are plenty of traditional weapons about.The fact that knife wounds are not all that lethal is partly due to the lack of training of the weilder.A hatchet , a machete and the like would be more efficient and had proven efficacy in recent armed conflicts.Where there is a will there is a way. But basically people in the UK etc are ver meek these days.

However, such is the piss poor nature of the British criminal justice system whereby burglars (i.e. home invaders) are routinely spared custodial sentences, I’d say that the any increase in deaths might be accounted for by dead burglars.

Anyone who comes into my house uninvited, had better be prepared to leave the area in an ambulance.

john malpasJanuary 3, 2012 at 00:13

Back in 1940 -50 ish there were guns everywhere. Many souvenirs etc.I don’t recollect any mass killings of civilians. I suppose it is a long time go and I was rather young.We had an enormous webley revolver ( up in the attic) .What happened to it finally I know not.

AetiusJanuary 3, 2012 at 00:10

Single Act of Tyranny has got to the heart of it. The British state does not restrict legal ownership of guns for the benefit of us – the British people, but for the benefit of the state apparatus.

We should liberalise gun ownership, so that many more ordinary people are armed. It will then be harder for the state to push us around.

For example, I am amazed that social workers are able to seize so many children from their parents. I strongly suspect that if the British public were well armed, social workers would be a lot less eager to take children into care.

zaphodJanuary 2, 2012 at 23:44

Increased ownership of guns would lead to increased death by guns.

Freedom and security have to be traded off, to some sort of balance.

Many of us here, (including me), would willingly accept reduced safety, to increase our freedom. But the majority of people probably wouldn’t. This is the real problem with modern politics. People are scared, mostly of the bogey-man.

SaulJanuary 2, 2012 at 22:51

Criminals have easy access to guns and use them for criminal activity. Unfortunately most mass killings are the result of regular people snapping and being able to use their legal firearms.

SadButMadLadJanuary 3, 2012 at 00:02

The problem is that the very few and far between and very rare cases where regular people snap and use their legal (or illegal) firearms to kill their family are highlighted very prominently in the media. But the numbers killed by firearms are still very low. So it only needs one massacre to raise the murder rate by 10s maybe 100s of percent – which always sounds a lot.

Another point is that the murderer is the only one with the firearms license. The rest of the family not having any guns, and usually nor any training in using the household guns either. So the murderer can get rid of the whole family knowing that the can’t respond at any time.

The reason such mass killings are highlighted in the media is the same reason that a crash on the motorway floods the media outlets. Because it’s rare and newsworthy. Even multiple pile up crashes on motorways are very few and far between. Motorways are the safest roads in the UK.

Do we suddenly change the Road Traffic Act every time there is a multiple pile up? Hard cases make bad laws.

MickCJanuary 2, 2012 at 22:46

When applying for a Firearms Certificate, the applicant has to prove he has a need for it. The need will usually be for sport e.g shooting of game or targets, or for use in e.g. vermin control.The need will be demonstrated by membership of a club or of permission to shoot on appropriate land.Two referees are required and must provide confirmation that the applicant is a stable person. The name of the applicants doctor must be given and the doctor will be asked as to the applicants stability.There is little more that can be done in terms of trying to ensure that holders of firearms are responsible.To obtain a Shotgun Certificate, no need has to be proved; the citizen is entitled to have a shotgun, provided he is stable. Two referees are necessary as above.No further changes should be made (but they will be-probably applying the firearms rules to shotguns at the very least).

ivanJanuary 2, 2012 at 21:41

This post over at ‘Orphans of Liberty’ gives a very good summary of what we are facing.

If you could abolish ALL guns then the reference to past days when armed crime was rare might apply. A burglar would have to consider the chanse of being hit by a man’s fist or a kitchen knife wielded by his wife. However there are claims that more people in the USA are killed by a gun owned by a family member than one owned by a burglar.I don’t think the problem is anything to do with licensing firearms – it is due to the abolition of capital punishment by the Wilson government.

CascadianJanuary 2, 2012 at 22:12

Owning a gun is a serious commitment, and requires serious training to avoid accidents and stupidity.

Yamamoto said the reason Japan didn’t invade the mainland USA in 1941/2 was the likelihood of a gun behind every blade of grass.

The Jews in the Warsaw ghetto showed what could be achieved with even modest handguns and a few rifles against the SS in 1944. Compare that to their disarmed co-religionists in other parts of Eastern Europe who were just marched off like cattle to the slaughter.

The reason the government doesn’t want you armed has nothing to do with massacres, it’s to do with control. No dictator wants people armed to resist. Now one person can’t resist a SWAT team, but a whole neighbourhood could. They can’t resist an army but a whole country can. An armed populace is the last guarantee of freedom and this is why we are disarmed, PLEASE see this for what it is.

Ed PJanuary 2, 2012 at 20:34

I agree entirely.Two to three hundred years ago Britains were free to carry weapons, daggers, swords (hangers), cudgels, small pistols, etc. Back then, only fools started trouble, knowing their fate was probable death.If/when the entire global economy collapses, methods of self-defence will be essential to defend possessions & property. Be ready!

CascadianJanuary 2, 2012 at 22:09

When Peel formed the first police force, there was an implied contract that the populace would forgo violence and weapons provided the police were successful in controlling serious crime.

Modern constabularies have given up on that preferring to penalize mainly law-abiding citizens for minor infringements. Since the compact is broken the citizenry should revert to arming themselves against thuggery.

CascadianJanuary 2, 2012 at 20:00

There can be no doubt that in the wrong hands a gun can be an indiscriminent and devastating killing machine, but as gun lobbyists and others have pointed out the same is true of an automobile and many other tools. Banning or restricting useful tools or automobiles is never seriously contemplated.

What the government and the police force are attempting to do is control gun ownership by unstable or mentally ill owners, an impossible task because a person’s mental balance can and does change from day-to-day and under certain circumstances minute-by-minute. The best they can hopefully achieve is to insist that ownership of a gun is accompanied by strenuous safety training to avoid mentally stable users accidentally discharging weapons, I support that (but it should not be administered by the state), all other bureaucratic form-filling and interviewing is pointless and a needless waste of money and police resources.

Given the proven inability of the police forces to maintain order, I am thinking of the recent riots, I think it perfectly logical that homeowners would wish to have the ability to scare off rampaging mobs while you await the arrival of the constabulary (hopefully). Here is where proper training comes in, your fervent hope is that voice threatening and your appearance with a shotgun will convince the rioters to disperse.

Before I veer off into further gun ownership advocacy, it seems to me that whenever the government attempts to infer some malign intent is criminal they make bad law. Surely their role is to define unlawful acts based on their effects on others and punish actual law breaking that negatively affects others. That is a very old fashioned point-of-view in these days of advocacy and nanny-state.

Single Acts of TyrannyJanuary 2, 2012 at 20:08

“Given the proven inability of the police forces to maintain order, I am thinking of the recent riots, I think it perfectly logical that homeowners would wish to have the ability to scare off rampaging mobs while you await the arrival of the constabulary (hopefully)”

Yep, as it is, we are required to run away like sheep and surrender to the looter. Whereas gun ownership would have ended the looting in about five minutes.

“Banning or restricting useful tools or automobiles is never seriously contemplated.”

Apart from the fact that automobiles are only allowed to be used by people who are licensed to use them, you’re dead right. However, that’s quite a big ‘apart from’, in this context.

As for the main thrust here.. I entirely get the argument. But I’m not buying it. We don’t have much gun crime in this country, even less if you only consider cases where someone who doesn’t have a gun gets shot by someone who does. This is one area where I’m happy enough for the politicians to blunder about being reactionary, and find work for idle bureaucrats. I take the view that someone who comes after my stuff, has no desire to shoot me.. and so is highly unlikely to do so unless he has reason to believe I’m going to shoot him. Whilstever he would generally assume I don’t have the tools to do so, I feel like, on balance, I’m safer.

zaphodJanuary 2, 2012 at 18:54

I shall abstain on this one.

I don’t think that further increasing the controls on guns will have much effect, other than creating pointless jobs and inconveniencing legitimate owners.

Decreasing controls would have the reverse effect, and I would support it.

I hesitate to support the abolition of all controls, but it is worth discussing.

Single Acts of TyrannyJanuary 2, 2012 at 20:06

Sammy “the bull” Bravano, mafia killer favoured gun control. Three guesses why. Whereas in Switzerland where many if not most people have an automatic weapon at home seems to enjoy low crime rates and tiny burglary numbers. Again the reason is obvious, would you try to swipe a plasma TV if you had to risk a twenty round burst from some homeowner?

binaoJanuary 2, 2012 at 17:41

There is a limit to what can practically be done to stop either the very rare incidence of harm by licensed weapon owners or the more common problems involving illegal weapons.Our porous borders and relatively free people movements mean that it is easy for the determined to supply and own illegal weapons. Its hard to see that we can do much more than target known criminals and their associates, I don’t suppose we need more laws that will just be ignored anyway.I’m not a gun owner, but have had some training, and, having lived in countries where personal weapons are freely available and carried (and used), I would not wish to see that here.Tragic though the misuse of licensed firearms is, we ought to look at the risks relative say to the thousands killed and hundreds of thousands seriously wounded on the roads.I also doubt we will be placing tighter restrictions on the ownership of sharp kitchen knives.Tin hat on.

PatJanuary 2, 2012 at 17:39

Isn’t it funny that all the massacres of the innocent carried out with guns occurred in places where it was illegal too carry a gun?Perhaps someone can tell me why criminals don’t shoot in places where others could shoot back.They’re really not playing the game are they

Joe PublicJanuary 2, 2012 at 18:59

The ability of most citizens to legally possess & carry firearms in the US of A hasn’t prevented gun massacres.

Single Acts of TyrannyJanuary 2, 2012 at 19:21

Oh yes it has. These things tend to happen when ‘concealed carry’ is banned. Ever noticed any lunatics cutting lose at an NRA rally? Of course not, they would last about two minutes.

Most US schools are designated gun-free zones, so carrying one is illegal. Oddly genocidal madmen seem predisposed to ignore this law and rather like the certain knowledge that all the targets will be defenceless.

Guns are readily available in the EU, especially from former Eastern Bloc countries. Getting them into this country is so easy it makes your head spin. As a foot passenger on the ferries, especially the Belgium – UK run, l’ve never seen anyone have their person or luggage searched in Zeebrugge. Arriving in UK the most you can expect is having your luggage searched for tobacco products … their is no attempt to search your person whatsoever.

Only this past summer l saw ‘farmers’ in Bulgaria using AK-47′s for pest control of rabbits etc … l kid you not.

EngineerJanuary 2, 2012 at 16:38

If someone really, really wants a gun, they’ll get one, legally or otherwise. The harder it is to obtain one legally, the more extensive will the illegal trade in them become.

For many (farmers, gamekeepers, some conservationists, pest controllers) firearms are just a tool ofthe trade. Making legitimate activity harder is no business of government.

If someone really, really wants to commit murder, they will, with or without a gun.

Tighter gun controls will only inconvenience the law-abiding, whilst doing nothing to address the illegal trade in and use of firearms. That was true after Dunblane, it was true after the tragedy in West Cumbria, and it is true now.

SadButMadLadJanuary 2, 2012 at 16:16

Sometimes having a license for something does nothing in terms of stopping bad things from happening.

A bit of clarification is required though. This is in a few Mexican states where there is so much corruption in getting a license that effectively it means nothing and so when the licenses were abolished there was no change in crash statistics.

But it does show it that if you assume that everyone else is mad and bad and you act accordingly then not having any licenses doesn’t make the country a worse place to live. And not having the license doesn’t mean that you’ll have everyone driving around like arseholes nor that you will have everyone shooting the place up like the mythical wild wild west.

JuddJanuary 2, 2012 at 15:35

When you criminalise guns only criminals have them.The criminal who wants to carry a gun already does so illegally.

People have the right to defend themselves in their own homes, those responsible for maintaining law and order have failed miserably in doing so, its immoral to disallow law abiding citizens from defending themselves and their loved ones.

Those who make the rules are already protected or can afford to live in places unaffected by gun crime.

Single Acts of TyrannyJanuary 2, 2012 at 19:18

They are of course protected by people with guns, only we are disarmed.

No use if they are an hour away dealing with a rumble in the Dog and Duck.

Single Acts of TyrannyJanuary 3, 2012 at 08:51

Yes quite, I was talking about Blair’s armed guards (and other members of the elite of course) that we aren’t allowed.

Sister EvaLongoriaJanuary 2, 2012 at 15:34

As Captain of the Convent Shooting Team and also a qualified sniper I have to say that it would probably be undesireable to make guns more freely available. We saw in Salford last week the sad result of allowing guns into the possession of the morally defunct smack head lunatics which inhabit large swathes of this once green and pleasant land. Although I suppose I can make out a case based on self defence by the rest of us….

Is there not evidence from the USA that people who use guns for self-defence are MORE likely to be shot?

ivanJanuary 2, 2012 at 21:36

No.

gladiolysJanuary 2, 2012 at 15:26

As for the CRB – yes it’s a costly paper pushing exercise and there are probably people who get rewarded with their approval stamp who shouldn’t. I’m still quite happy though that it prevents people who have offended against children from finding further work with other children (although I quite accept that those who are determined will create their own opportunities that by-pass the CRB all together). But as that arbiter of all that is moral in this country so aptly says: “Every little helps.”

“I’m still quite happy though that it prevents people who have offended against children from finding further work with other children…”

Correction: It prevents people who have offended against children and been caught and convicted from finding further work with other children.

gladiolysJanuary 2, 2012 at 20:43

That’s still fine by me.

ThePresentOccupierJanuary 11, 2012 at 06:50

A further correction (sorry) –

It *may* flag people who have been caught and convicted. It may not. It may also flag people who have not been caught and convicted (by dint of them not having committed the crimes the computer says they have).

Exasperating though the rules on dealing with children may be at times (e.g. never leaving 1 adult with children), they’re IMO more useful than the CRB can ever be.

SadButMadLadJanuary 2, 2012 at 16:27

Yes but it doesn’t require everyone’s full criminal record to be checked. Only those who have been convicted of sexual offences against children will have their details on a list. When anyone applies for a sensitive job the list is checked. If their details aren’t on the list, then assume they are OK. Rather than assume that everyone is a potential kiddy fiddler. Every little helps in making the country feel like a scary place to be with child molesters on every street corner.

gladiolysJanuary 2, 2012 at 20:45

So what do you suggest.? We do fuck all and hope for the best? And when a convicted sex offender re-offends I can already hear the howls of moral outrage.

Ed PJanuary 2, 2012 at 15:15

This presents a difficult balance of relative freedoms. There are now so many poorly educated and amoral people in this septic isle, that allowing them more firearms, without even the cursory controls now pertaining, might be disastrous. Even if the EU allowed relaxation of such laws, somehow I can’t see our pathetic politicians voting for more freedom and less taxation revenue.

Yoo is on our turf, innitJanuary 2, 2012 at 18:41

“There are now so many poorly educated and amoral people…”

Good point.

Single Acts of TyrannyJanuary 2, 2012 at 19:17

Er, they already have guns, I would rather like one to protect myself from them as the police can’t.

“…All it proves is that prior to obtaining the licence the person concerned hadn’t committed any crime…”

All it means is jobs for police officers in checking and recertifying. And since – a few years ago – one of their own officers checked out a shotgun and went to pay his wife (or wife’s mother, I can’t remember) a visit it means less than nothing. No one can guarentee it won’t be misused.

But, since there are indications the police had ‘prior contact’ with this family (threats of self-harm have been mentioned) I suspect someone’s taking a long hard look at the relevant paperwork right now….